Newspaper Page Text
January 12, 1916] THE
trustees elected shall be Presbyterian?the president must be a member of the Presbyterian ehurch?all members of the faculty shall be members of an evangelical ehurch, a majority df them Presbyterian and the school shall have a course in the Bible?such a school may be classed a Southern Presbyterian Institution. The others shall be joint Presbyterian, where some other Reformed Church elects trustees or alliliated, where some other Churches or none l;as a minority of the trustees. The inference is that for all time we may be sure these are safe. To such our nmnnv ami our boys may fro freely without fear of loss of I'resbyterianism. But is this so sure? Charters are creations of the civil government. They are easily changed. Even if a majority of the trustees are Presbyterians and nominated as such, but being nominated they have right to ask the Legislature to change the very charter. It has been done, and when too late synods have waked up to find that the very trustees they elected have changed the basis of the institution. Or, a majority of the synod may give tip this privilege and get the charter so changed. All the mem hers must be members of some evangelical church, but they may be mere nominal members. We know that one or two men in any institution mold its thought; they may be the very men who are not Presbyterians. There must be a course in the Bible but it may be taught by a man who has no true conception of the point of view of the Southern Presbyterian church. The definition of Presbyterian Seminaries is singularly unfortunate. It is "those approv^,1 1 3 a? i ?l ^ ' eu uy uuu reporting 10 me uenerai Assembly of the Presbyterian church in the United States.'' Princeton has not been approved by the General Assembly. Nor does she report to our Assembly. The same is true of McCormick and others. It is sad indeed that men who have been to these Seminaries, have not been 1o Presbyterian Seminaries and have had no Theological education. Some of our best ministers are put into a sad catagory. Verily some of us are so "sound" that like Paddy's drum we are about to burst. Is not Presbyterianism a tvne of thought rath er than a thing of charter? Is it not a system of truth very plainl}' stated? Does not any institution manned by men of this Presbyterian type of thought, who adhere in life and teaching to our clearly defined system of truth, constitute a Presbyterian Institution? The fact is charters that require Hoards of Trustees to be Presbyterian may be and are changed. Prcsbyterial or synodical control does not insure a Presbyterian life, for our land is strewn with institutions that started fairly enough under such control, and secured devoted money, that were given away, or sold to other churches or individuals, and are not now and never will be Presbyterian. I'lie only way to insure the eternal I'resbyterianisni of an institution is to write it in the deed of gift of every subscriber. Such a contract cannot be broken this side the Judgment Day. Such an institution alone is invariably sin/l .11" T> 1---A?: ? ci^iunujr sricauylenun. We do not find this in the definition of the Ad-Interim Committee on Presbyterian Educational Institutions. We venture humbly to "add this as an appendix to the report; and further rise to say that there is only one such institution in the bounds <?f the Southern Presbyterian church, and the name of that institution is Oglethorpe." A. A. L. PRESBYTERIAN OF THE SO Contributed PRIEST?PRIESTHOOD. S. E. Tabb. II. In a preceding article it was made plain that, fro 111 a Scripture point of view, there is 110 such thing as a priestly order or class in the New Testament Church, but that priesthood is now a universal function, each believer being his own priest and having himself the free l ight to come directly to God, without the intervention of any one else save ever and only lesus who is "an high priest over the house of God;" and lie, therefore, can singly and solely maw near wiiu a true ueart 111 run assurance of faith" (Heb. 10:21, 22). These Truths Reasserted. It is high time that these scriptural truths were iterated and reiterated, when an ecclesiastical hierarchy (hiereus, priest; arche, rule), claiming rightful dominance over all mankind, is, with blatant and insolent obtrusion, thrust ing itself so uublushingly into the face and eyes of American Christendom, and even in Washington, the capital of this great nation, is virtually compelling officialdom in some ways, from-the president down, to yield to its warrantless priestly pretensions. The truths of the common priesthood of all believers, now so much obscured, is no new notion. It was set forth by the earliest Church writers, like Justin Martyn (105-165), Irenaeus (115-190), Tertullian (160-240) and others. More yet, the Roman pontiff, Pope Leo I (440461), called "Leo the Great," dwelt on the same truth. The Truth Perverted. But at an early date, in imitation of Old Testament usage, there was a beginning of calling the clergy "priests," for which, as was demonstrated in our previous article, there was not a particle of Scripture authority. In the third century the offering of the Eucharist, which is a thank offering?such was the growth of the priestly idea?began to be regarded as made in behalf of the people instead of by the people. The countries about the Mediterranean were distributed, for the purposes of ecclesiastical administration, into five patriarchates, named from their civic centers: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. These were at first of equal and co-ordinate standing, neither one claiming any supremacy over the others. But about the middle of the fifth century, Leo I, mainly for political reasons?such was the coalition between popes and emperors ?began to advance the ambition and usurping idea of the primacy of Rome. This idea was pushed until in the eleventh century (1054) there resulted the Great Schism, or separation of Christendom into two parts: the Roman or Western Church, and the Greek or Eastern Church. Tt may, therefore, be said, in passing, that there was no such thing as a distinctive Roman Catholic Church until after this wicked schismatic eleventh century event. Involved in this deplorable contention was the upspringing and growth of the hierarchy (priest rule), which became a most powerful adjuvant to pontifical pretensions and projects. With equal step, the concept of the Eucharist as a thank offering, gave place to that of a sacrifice, for which a priestly function was indispensable. And, as the Catholie Encyclopedia says: "The essential correlative of priesthood is sacrifice" (Vol. Xlf, p. 409). The common priesthood of believers was displaced by the priesthood of an official caste. When in the thirteenth century the doctrine of Transubstantiation (that is, changing the bread and UTH. 3 wine of the Eucharist into the veritable body and blood of Christ!) was fixed, the sacrificial character of the elements, or mass, was determined by Thomas Aquinas (1227-74), and Albert the Great (1193-1280) ; was formally adopted by the Council of Trent (1545-63); and was doctrinally made the central idea of the Komish priest system. "Priesthood" Exemplified?the "Priest" at Work. In the Catechism prepared and enjoined by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) ?again exemplifying Trent?in answer to questions we are told that "Christ gave his priests the power to change bread and wine into his body and blood when he said to the ii i t-v ii ? n . .. aposues, uo tnis ior a commemoration of me' " (Q. 891). This claim is not true, of course, but utterly false, for the simple reason that Christ does not have any clerical "priests," and no person has any such power. "The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ at the consecration of the mass" (Q. 916). This is not true, but utterly false, for the simple reason that no such change takes place or has ever taken place in priestly or any other consecration. To the retort. "Oh, assertion"?which may be tVust equally in turn at either side?we submit that the Roman Catholic Church should accept the oft-made challenge, herewith renewed, to submit any quantum they please of the alleged changed elements to the scientific and truthful determination of a competent chemical analysis, and so prove whether their transubstantiaf inn oloim oeenuf e ?? ?? ? P? 1 r.u.> v>u<iu uso^i ia iiiKii in <i mi.:l ur ih <1 falsehood. In the September, 1914, number of the Protestant Magazine, published at Takoma Park, D. C., a challenge to such an analysis was in most respectful terms formally made. This test would certify if bread becomes flesh and wine, becomes blood; and, if true, the Catholic faith would be incontrovertibly confirmed and the unbelief of the Protestant world be forever confuted. Let the test be made. Thus would be demonstrated either an article of faith or an?arrant fraud. Still further from the Catechism: "The mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ" (Q. 917). "The mass is the same sacrifice as that on the cross" (Q. 920). This is untrue, for these statements atrociously contradict the epistle to the Hebrews, where it tells of "the nffpritirr nf +l>o Krv.ltr ?P _ .? w VJ. tin fl COUA Christ once for all" (10:10). "This man, after lie had offered one sacrifice for sins forever. sat down on the right hand of God" (10:12). "For by one offering he hath perfected forever thorn that are sanctified" (10:14). "This he did once for all, when he offered up himself" (7:27). "There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (10:26), and "without shedding of blood there is no remission" of sins (9:22). No wonder Cardinal Bellarmine, in his treatise on the Eucharist, admits that the dogma of transubstantiation cannot he proved from the Scriptures (Bk. 3, cap. 23), and he quotes the assertion of John Duns Scotus, the well known Roman theologian, that before the Lateran Council transubstantiation was not a dogma of faith." Without a shred of biblical authority, it is simply a conceit of errant human concoction. And it is to be noted that in the Authorized Catechism, from which these quotations are made, there is not a single Scrip ture reference in proof of the statements made. And yet, we may ask, why should there he any? for, according to Romanist teaching, the Bible "osts on the Roman Catholic Church, not the Church on the Bible. What "the Church" says must, therefore, be truth, Bible or no Bible! A vaunt! And when we are also told that "mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God"